Why The War Was Not About Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 9, 2016 | Clyde Wilson

[NKP_Vet]

Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.

I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.

Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.

[FLT-bird]

I’ve never seen people so convinced as to the rightness of their cause and yet having the ability to be so blind as to what they’re actually arguing for and who they are siding with as rockrr, Doodledawg and BrojoeK.

[FLT-bird]

Economics tells the true story, and what the financial numbers clearly show is that the South was going to make a fortune off of being independent, and the North was going to lose an @$$load of money to the South. All else is just blather and noise. Money is the reason slavery existed in the first place, and money is the reason why the South wanted to leave, and Money is the reason why the North was intent on stopping them. The First f***ing thing the North did was to throw up a Naval blockade all around the South. Hello? The whole F***ing war was mostly *LAND BATTLES* and the blockade did very little to affect the military portion of the war. The blockade was totally about economics. It was not done for military reasons, it was done for financial reasons.

3 of the 4 states that even listed causes listed causes other than protection of slavery EVEN THOUGH THESE CAUSES WERE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (yes I am including Rhett's address as part of South Carolina's declaration since it was attached to it and sent out along with it).

South Carolina and Georgia talk extensively about economic grievances and Texas mentions that along with the malicious refusal to provide border security as was supposed to be required.

What do countries fight about? Overwhelmingly money. What do individuals fight about? Often money. Of course politicians will always try to couch it in terms of some supposedly noble purpose. Its never a good thing to tell a family their loved one gave his life for money or their son got half of his face blown off and will live the rest of his life a cripple for money....no matter how true it is. The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The US Congress passed a resolution stating that they were not fighting over slavery. Indeed, they still had slavery. Lincoln said many times he had no intention to interfere with slavery. Once it became a bloodbath, oh why THEN....magically....years later....against their express earlier statements....it became "all about slavery". Anybody who is not hopelessly naive or a rabid political ideologue can see right through that.

[Team Cuda]

Why did the South secede?

Money. That’s also why the North invaded. Nobody gave a sh*t about the slaves. This as all about who was going to get the money they produced.

If the war had anything to do with the suffering of the black man, Lincoln would not have tried to push the Corwin amendment on the Nation.

The War had nothing to do with it until it became politically advantageous and militarily beneficial to pretend to care about it.

Well, at least a simple answer – I knew you had it in you.

So, when South Carolina, in their Articles of Secession, says “..they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” they clearly didn’t give a sh*t about slavery. Interesting point – the word tax is mentioned only once in the entire Article of Secession, and that was in reference to the 3/5 tax on slaves in the Constitution. BTW the word tariff is used zero times. The word slavery is in it six times.

When the Georgia Ordinance of Secession mentions slavery 26 (!) times, tariffs ZERO times, and taxes ZERO times, we are forced to conclude that their secession was not about slavery and was about money, and that they clearly didn’t give a shi*t about slavery. BTW, when Georgia, regarding the Democratic party said that “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization”, it makes me very confused. You promised me that the southern states couldn’t care less about slavery in the Territories, so I don’t quite understand. Could you please run this through your magic decoder ring and tell me what they meant when they stated this?

I could go on, but you get the point. I do have to include the greatest hit of all the Articles of Secession, Mississippi. Surely when they included in their Article of Secession the statement “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest in the world”, they clearly didn’t give a sh*t about slavery.

Again, you are to be congratulated. Your knowledge of why the southern states seceded is clearly superior to that of the people who actually voted to secede. They were there, and they did vote for secession, and they did do the fighting and dying but, other than that, why do we even consider their position at all? I’m sure that the reason they went to all the effort to list slavery in their Articles of Secession was clearly an attempt to obfuscate their true reason (and why did they feel the need to obfuscate their reasons, anyway?)

BTW, can you share where you obtained your secret decoder ring? You know, the one where you feed the word “slavery” in, and it turns it into some other (any other) word? How many box tops did it take anyway? I hope it doesn’t require any granola cereal boxes. I hate granola.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your nitpicks might sometimes be technically correct, but you are using them in an effort to muddle understanding.

You don't volunteer anything to clarify salient points, you just try to throw stupid little monkey wrenches into a discussion.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not going to buy your bullsh*t. I *TOLD* you Porter was trying to start a war in Pensacola. Get a f***ing clue. Lincoln was going to have his war.

Don't even believe what I told you. Look it up your f***ing self. Porter was either way out of control, or he was acting directly on Lincoln's orders. Since his orders were secret, and since they have never been revealed, it's a pretty safe bet Lincoln told him to deliberately start a war.

Stop believing the crap you've been told when it is clearly ontradicted by demonstrable facts.

Porter was a backup plan for starting that war. *LINCOLN* meant to have a war.

[DiogenesLamp]

You see the problem is that you are quoting from f**ing newspaper editorials while I'm quoting from the f**ing tariff legislation itself.

Since the newspaper article is the beginning of where you jumped in and started talking your stupid sh*t, *THAT* is the topic under discussion. Nobody was talking about whatever you quoted. We were talking about what the Northern Newspaper said, and I *TOLD* you they specifically said "railroad iron", and of course you, like the usual dumb@$$ you are, jumped in with your usual stupid diversion crap.

Once again you are just incorrect, and still too stubborn to admit it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly what I said. You are *NOT* going to gaslight me, because I see things as they really are, and I do not long tolerate people trying to feed me deluded crap.

Corwin Amendment proves everything you think you know about the war is incorrect.

[DiogenesLamp]

They don't try to understand or analyze motives. They simply want to buy into the narrative that was sold to the nation and has been taught ever since.

They just leap over logical chasms like Lincoln supporting the Crowin amendment, or slavery needing to "expand" in order to survive.

They just want to believe what they want to believe because they have been conditioned to buy into the official story.

[DiogenesLamp]

Anybody who is not hopelessly naive or a rabid political ideologue can see right through that.

I started out questioning the official narrative when I kept noticing things about the Civil War that just didn't make any sense. I finally realized the official narrative is simply incompatible with demonstrable facts.

We have a "deep state" now pushing this "Russian Collusion" bullsh*t, and I now realize the buearacracy was pushing the equivalent of "Russian Collusion" about the war.

Yes, they made up some bullsh*t, and they got the public to believe it because they control the media, same then as now.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not going to read more regurgitation of the same teeny tiny minority of states that people wish to read as speaking for all of them because it suits their agenda. I've already told you that I think it was just blather to cover up their real reasons, and some Northern newspapers also realized this.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation". "

Boston Transcript, October 1862

[DiogenesLamp]

I could go on, but you get the point.

No, you cannot go on because you only have four examples. You can't find any more examples than he four you have, because they do not exist, and when you find contradictions to these four examples, you simply ignore them, such as in the case of North Carolina and Virginia which clearly seceded because they saw Federal power as having become dictatorial and contrary to Constitutional law.

You don't get the point because you don't want to get the point.

You just gloss over the fact that Lincoln and the Northern coalition were simply going to give the South permanent protection to keep slavery going so long as Washington DC and the Robber Barons of New York could keep all that Slave money flowing into their pockets.

You buy into propaganda from both sides, and you simply ignore factual evidence demonstrating that slavery was not a motive for either side doing what they did.

[jmacusa]

So the South won the war!

[Bull Snipe]

that is correct

[Mr Rogers]

“Get a f***ing clue. Lincoln was going to have his war.”

Yeah, he was going to start a war with the just, pure, peace-loving Southerners who just happened to oblige him by opening fire on Fort Sumner to prevent a resupply mission. Mean Lincoln! Pure, noble Jefferson Davis! The Glorious South - forever a Shining Example of Nobility and Greatness! Vs evil, money-grubbing Northerners! < / sarcasm >

[BroJoeK]

Doodledawg: " Eminent domain doesn't allow states to seize federal property any more than it allows the federal government to seize state property."

DiogenesLamp: "And this is exactly why all the British forts in 1776 still remain in British hands today!"

FLT-bird: "Derp! He walked right into that one."

DiogenesLamp: "DoodleDawg is a "she", and yes she did! :) "

Well... first, DoodleDawg's gender is neither stipulated, nor a fact in evidence, nor relevant here.
So "he" is acceptable unless requested otherwise.

Second, DoodleDawg's point is totally valid and DiogenesLamp's response a total non-sequitur.
When governments seize properties from other governments those are acts of aggression & war having nothing lawful to do with "eminent domain".

Third, Lost Causers' biggest problem with their legalistic claims of "eminent domain" at Fort Sumter & dozens of other Federal properties is simply that no actual Confederate claimed it at the time.
In no case was any pretense of legal process followed before seizing Federal properties -- many even before a state declared secession, nothing remotely legal about it.
So those claims we see on these threads of "eminent domain" are just Democrats doing what Democrats do -- inventing cr*p out of thin air to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.

[ek_hornbeck]

There were idealists who didn't mind the idea of dying for the country and for freedom, and they weren't necessarily "radical abolitionists."

That's exactly what I'm saying: they were fighting to preserve the union, not for abolition of slavery. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation just muddied the political waters.

[DoodleDawg]

Well... first, DoodleDawg's gender is neither stipulated, nor a fact in evidence, nor relevant here.
So "he" is acceptable unless requested otherwise.

Much as it pains me to admit when DiogenesLamp isn't wrong, in this case he is quite right and I thank him for his correction.

[ek_hornbeck]

What you're calling "a bit idealistic" (stinky's posts) sounds more like unadulterated Antifa-style rhetoric to me. If, as according to stinky, all those who practice or defend slavery are evil and all nations that sanction slavery are evil, doesn't that make many of America's founders evil and the USA an evil nation at its creatinon...exactly as Antifa and other SJW types are saying.

I don't support slavery as an institution and probably wouldn't have if I had been around at the time - in fact, I'd argue that it caused more harm to free men than it did to slaves in southern states by creating an underclass of unemployed and underemployed Americans who could have had jobs in the absence of slavery (much as illegal immigrant labor does today). That doesn't mean that I'm going to join the far Left in its goals of smearing America's history in the name of a self-righteous, retrojected moral crusade.

[rustbucket]

I found in my post archives one of GOPcapitalist's old posts about how many secession documents relied on slavery. Here is a link: GOPcap's secession tabulation

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "We have warned them for years and years that the South's intellectual legacy is not limited to the mid 19th century.
It goes right to the very heart of the founding of the Republic.
For all their self congratulation, it was not New Englanders who provided the overwhelming majority of the intellectual force behind the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.
It was Dixie.
The Constitution is absolutely a product of the Southern mind."

Not just the "Southern mind".
The actual writers of the Constitution's drafts & final version did include Rutledge from SC, Randolph & Madison from Virginia, but also, Wilson from PA, Hamilton from NY, Ellsworth & Johnson from Connecticut, Gorham & King from Massachusetts and holding pen to paper, sometimes called "the rake who wrote the Constitution", Pennsylvania's Gouverneur Morris (Morris was then 35, single and we might say, a man about town. He, like Hamilton, was also closely allied to George Washington's views).

George Washington was President of the 1787 Constitution Convention and James Madison is rightly credited as "Father of the Constitution", for his pivotal roles.
Other Southerners contributed importantly to the Constitution as well, notably, the 3/5 rule & Fugitive Slave provision.
So Southerners were indeed important, though there were plenty of others who also contributed.

Regardless, the real story here is not how great Southerners were in 1787, but how far they fell by 1860.

FLT-bird: "Had it been written by New Englanders it would have had a much more centralized and expansive federal government and no provisions for individual liberty."

Sure, the South had it's fair share of anti-Federalists, but so did so did New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts & New Jersey.
All objected because they thought the Constitution made Federal government too powerful.